Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Mullen: It's Still A Pig, Part II
Spencer provided the link to the piece itself:
But beyond the term itself, I believe we have walked away from the original intent. By organizing to it—creating whole structures around it—we have allowed strategic communication to become a thing instead of a process, an abstract thought instead of a way of thinking. It is now sadly something of a cottage industry.
We need to get back to basics, and we can start by not beating ourselves up. The problem isn’t that we are bad at communicating or being outdone by men in caves. Most of them aren’t even in caves. The Taliban and al Qaeda live largely among the people. They intimidate and control and communicate from within, not from the sidelines.
"Military relief missions,"
"Military relief missions," Marshall Plan," "Three Cups of Tea," "girls schools."
If the mission is to transform the Third World (such that it might better service the needs of the developed and developing world), and lack of moral authority is the main obstical to getting into a country and/or region (so as to effect the needed transformation), then a foreign policy that is heavily advertised and conducted as "humanitarian" in nature may, indeed, be the way to go.
In difficult nations/areas of the world, you have to get your foot in the door somehow. And excellent opportunities may be few and fleeting. So, should you get a chance in an area or region (example: Afghanistan, due to the current war), then you have to look long and hard at staying there -- even if the circumstances are not ideal -- and getting at least some of the transformation job done.
Thus, when transforming the Third World (so that it might better service the developed and developing worlds) becomes one's overall goal and objective, then "strategy," "method," "tactics," "interests," etc., take on a new and different light.
Innovation, throughout the process (such as the "humanitarian" method) may routinely be necessary. As may be the need to explain to the American people exactly how and why a traditional national security assessment -- re: Afghanistan for example -- is no longer applicable or sufficient.
Must say Im getting a bit
Must say Im getting a bit bored with the transformation of this blog from a counterinsurgency blog into a amateur geo-strategy blog where noone can mention Israel and the Israel/Iran troubles (wich ofcourse impacts directly into Afghanistan in Oh so many ways).
Now we are getting into the endless debate on how many dead Afghans are worth sacrificing for how many points on the Dow Jones index vs. how many GIs. If I was serving on the ground somewhere right now, this blog would, instead of being an inspiration, just depress me, both for the use of what mr. Fine calls "non-emotional arguments" ("War as RISK" as I prefer to call it) and for the cyniscism of the depression of the commenters, propably including myself. When this blog, and others came out of nowhere and "conquered" the military ideosphere, it was because it was a haven for practical folks discussing on the ground issues. Now it seems to me to have become a argumentative echochamber on geopolitics, where terps and others are commodities, to be sold out or kept on the team, like good dogs, and the voices from the ground are treated more like nuisance than as real arguments. And thats sad.
What drives a foreign
What drives a foreign policy:
that causes State to focus on development and state-building as its primary long-term mission and goal,
that causes Defense to look like it will now be used significantly in the service of State and development, and which, accordingly, sees counterinsurgency as being one of the primary long-term problems it will now have to deal with,
that causes defense contractors and others in private enterprise to invest heavily in state-building services and capabilities,
that causes think tanks to hire development, state-building and counterinsurgency experts,
that advertises heavily with regard to the need to fix the problems of the Third World and how this is now a national security imperative,
and that now has officials -- throughout government -- talking in terms of Third World humanitarianism as a reason and way of getting things done?
Does this "sea-changes" in the nation's foreign policy focus and methods portend something that the military folks, fighting on the ground -- and the American people as a whole -- need to be better read in on; so that they might better do their jobs and understand, in overall terms, what they are to achieve and what they are sacraficing for? I think the answer is yes.
How else are we and they to understand, for example, why Afghanistan is now a "War of Necessity?"
@Fnord, "..where terps and
@Fnord,
"..where terps and others are commodities,..."
OK, can I hit you up when I get my guys 501c (or whatever tax free fund) to fund his legal bills and plane ticket, etc?
;-) I expect payment in Gold Krona BTW. :D
Elf: Definetly. If you have
Elf: Definetly. If you have a concrete project with real persons, I know a few government-affiliated politicans. The minister of Children and Familt planning or whatever, Anneken Huitfeldt, used to sleep on my couch in our student days. Its a small country. Havent spoken to her in years, but you see the point. Its a country on the model of Iceland, but with insane amounts of cash. (Those guys should get a military division like the gurkhas of their own if it was up to me. Was how the british did it, hire the best ones.)
But it must be a real project, with paperwork, etc. Then thats a ball I would definetly feel proud to try to sell round here, (hopefully using this blog for all that its worth as a part of the internal pushing I hope is OK, Abu?). That would be a pleasure to try, no promises of course. Contact at robin_lefay@yahoo.co.uk.
PS: Its Kroner, not Krona.
PS: Its Kroner, not Krona. ;-)
It appears that the Afghan
It appears that the Afghan people, because of our intervention, will be offered the opportunity to become more "modern."
"Modernity" works for us. What becoming "modern" really means, to us, is that:
a. You can become a much better provider for the global economy. The market sees a traditional society as being both an unbelievable opportunity and significant obstical that MUST be overcome. Successfully transforming a traditional society into one that becomes more modern means that huge new numbers of people can now be put to work providing very cheap (at first) goods and services for use by the world market; and that these newly "modernized" individuals can purchase, with their new earnings, huge new quantities of goods and services produced elsewhere in the world (economic growth). Thus, the market sees the education and emancipation of women (because they, generally, make up over 50% of this under-utilized community) as being especially critical to this modernizing task.
b. Being "modern" also means that you are likely to be less of a threat to the "international community." By becoming "modern," you, like the rest of the "modern world," have become dependent upon the world market for your security, survival and new way of life.
Looked at in this way, transforming the Third World can be seen as a very excellent way of providing for national securty. If you are successful at transforming the Third World, you gain friends, lose enemies and make excellent use of a variety of vastly under-utilized communities to greatly and broadly increase economic growth -- to the benefit of all concerned.
The trouble is, that certain portions of a population will not wish to be "modern" and do not wish to be "transformed."
But that is what the enhanced foreign policy tools of "diplomacy," "humanitarianism," "development," and irregular warfare (COIN, etc) are being designed and deployed to overcome.
Back in the day, the
Back in the day, the previous generation studied "communism." Pre-capitalist communism was the entity and the enemy that the previous generation was directed to confront and tasked to overcome. (Communism, at that time, was the primary obstical to being able to rapidly expand the global economy -- and certain of these communists had stated that they would "bury us.") The previous generation of Americans would attempt to defeat and "transform" the Communist World through various methods, using both soft and hard power. The previous generation was successful in their endeavor. By the turn of the century, pre-capitalist communism had (for the time being) been vanquished and both Russia and China were moving to become incorporated into the market-based economic system.
Since the turn of the century, the new generation has studied "tribalism" (the central aspect of more traditional societies). Tribalism and the more traditional societies are the entity and enemy that the current generation has been directed to confront and tasked to overcome. (Tribalism and the more traditional societies are today's primary obstical to being able to expand the global economy -- and certain groups of these individuals have stated that they intend to wipe us out.) Thus, the current generation will attempt to defeat and transform the Third World (to make it more compatible for use by the developed and developing world) using both soft and hard power methods tailored for this particular task (irregular warfare/COIN, "humanitarianism," state-building, etc).
The Third World is the last remaining obstical to having the world completely transformed -- such that it might become a true "Market World." And the Third World's transformation is deemed extremely critical to being able to support and sustain the previous communist world's new capitalist attempts. Should we not be able to incorporate the Third World into this new capitalist-based world system, then the work done by the previous generation may be for naught -- as these new capitist entities (Russia, China and India) may not be able to be sustained (as fellow capitalists) without the Third World being transformed to meet their (and our) huge and ever-increasing needs.
http://my.barackobama.com/pag
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/obamaforamerica/gGMPG4
Obama's weekly address, August 29, 2009: Lessons and Renewal out of the Gulf Coast
I agree with your point,
I agree with your point, please share with us more good articles.1976 Buick Apollo AC Compressor
Add your comment